•^ -. RECEIVED IN
";* COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
UNITE-D STATE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ._ .
Austin division ArK v± 2015
LEON HARRISON, § RE: CASE: No."! 4-1 3-$$^ ^cfeffe, CH®rk
Appellant § PDR No.PD-0392-14,
o TC:#635921; CT:#230TH _„ _^
u- | FILED IN
THE STATE OF TEXAS, • * • C°URT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
APPELL£E' § APR 012015
APPELANT'S REQUEST COURT EN BANC TO CONSIDER COURT OF
APPEALS DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S MOTION; UNDER RULE. 60(b)(5) COSta, Clerk
Appellant bring this action to request the Court to En Banc on
considering the denial of 14th Court of Appeals and the Texas Cou
rt of Criminal's denial of Appellant prose motion under Rule 60(b)
(5), and will show the Court the following:
Statement U£_E§se
The nature of the Motion is from the 14th Court of Appeals, affirming
the trial court's unfavorabia findings under article 64.04 of the Texas
Code ,;of Criminal Procedure, which was made on September 24,2012 (GR at
1 03) .-i Appellant timely filed his pro se notice of appeal, pursuant to
art..64.05, on October 16,2012, (CR at 108).
Appeant mas appointed counsel in the appeal. On October 9,2013, appeal
counsel filed Motion To Abate Appeal, pending the Court of Criminal App
eals out in wHITFIEELD v. ST ATE ,No .01 -1 2-00081 -CR, 2013 Uli 2456720 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.l Dune 6 ,201 3 ,pet .granted . (. In that case, the
court of appeals dismissed Uihitefisld!s appeal of the trial court's un
favorable findings for want of jurisdiction, citing STATE v. H0LL0WAY,
360 5.ti).3d 400 (Tex.Crim.App.2U12). The court of appeals summarized
the holding in Holloway, as follows:
[B]ecause a writ of habeas corpus is only (sic) way to obtain
postconviction relief based on DNA testing, any opinion of a
court of appeals reviewing a trial court's findings under arti
cle 64.04 would be advisory. We lack jurisdiction to render ad
visory opinions.
Appellant's case is in precisely the same posture as Whitfield's was
on appeal ana since the Court of Appeals affirm the 1st Court's major
ity opinion, the 14th Court of Appeal was obligated to dismiss the app
eal irrespective of any substantive issue he may have.
1 .
The 14th Court of Appeals refused to address appeal counsel's motion
to abate appeal and Appellant's pro se motion to correct appeals record
under Rule 34.6(f) and (d), T .R ..A. P., before the appointment of counsel,
and appeal counsel motion to withdraw from case.
On February 27,2014 the Court of Appeals granted appeal.counsel's mot
ion to withdraw as attorney of record in the above cause number. Which
intuun denied Appellant's pro se brief in this cause number.
The Court of Criminal Appeals refused the Appellant's PDR thereafter.
On 10/23/14, Appellant filed his Motion of Leave to File Under Rule
60(b)(5),Fed.R.Civ.Proc ., and court denied motion as being time barred
to invoke its jurisdiction. On 1/29/15, Appellant filed under Rule 60
(b)(5), to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals
addressed the issue by informing Appeals the Court no-longer had its
appellate record. On 1/30/15, Appellant filed a motion to the Court of
appeals to reconsider court's denial of appellant's motion under Rule
60(b)(5) under Court En Banc. The court never addressed motion. Now
Appellant motion this Court to address his motion under Rule 60(b)(5).
REASON FOR MOTION UNDER RULE 60(b)(5 )
Under Rule 60(c), timely and effect of the motion. Appellant will sh
ow this Court he is well inwhich the one year time limit of the court's
judgment in bath the court of appeals and the court cf criminal appeals.
Rule 60(c) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:
A motion under Rule aQ(b) must be made within a reasonable time and
for raasons (1),(2), and (.3) no.more then a year after th.e entry of the
judgment or order or the date of the proceeding. (.2) Ef fect on Finlity. ,
The motion does not affect tho judgment's finality cr suspend it"s oper
ation, (d) other powers to grant relief, this rule does not limit a co
urt's power to: (1) entertain an in-dependent action to relieve a party
from a judgment, order, or proceeding, (2) 6£ant_T.e:liaf -undar 2,3 U.S.C.
f_!-:!:? to a de-endant who was not personally notified of the act on:
(3). Set_aside_a_jud§ment_for_fraud on the court, (e) bills and writs s?d:
abolished. The following are abolished: Bills of review., bills in the
nature of bills of review, 2nd writs of coram nobis, coram vcbis,and
(audita querela) [law latin "the complaint having been head"] a writ
available to a judgment debtor who seeks a rehearing cf a matter on
grounds of newly discovered evidence or newly existing legal defenses.
The writ of Audits Querela (=quarrel having been heard).. Introduced
during the time of Edward III,, was available to reopen a judgment in
certain circumstances. It was issued as a remedy to defendants where
on important matter concering his case arised since judgment. It issue
was based on quitable, rather then common law pinciples. L.B.Curzan,
English legal history 103 (2d Ed.1979)
Audita querela is distinguished from coram nobis in that coram nobis
attacks the judgment itself, whereas Audita querela may be directed
against the enforcement, or further enforcement of a judgment which wh
en redered was just and unirnpachable . TA CCS. Audita Querela § at
901 (19B0).
Appellant case is a trial court's judgment not to find DNA results
not favorable to Appellant's actual innocence claim inwhich he was
excluded from the profile be DPS-crime lab, under Art.64.03-04 and 05
of Tex .Code .Crim .Proc. , which. Appellant appealed to the 14th Court of.
Appeals. Appellant was appointed appellate counsel which filed a motion
to abate appeal pending the out-come of the Court of Criminal Appeals
decision in, WHITFIELD v. STATE.409 S.W.3d 11 (20013); Reversed by
2014 Tex.Crim.App.LEXIS 689; Reversed by 430 S.W.3d 4U5 (July 22,2014
CCA.)- 2014 Tex.App.LEXIS 7902.
Appellant motions to the court of appeals and court of criminal appeals
was timely inwhich Rule 60(c) states said motion must be made.
PRAYER
Appellant have mat the required showing of Rule 60(b)(5) & (c), and
pray that this Court will En Banc to consider the court of appeals den
ial cf Appellant's Motion of Leave Of Court Under Rule 60(b)(5) and in
all things grant this motion. Appellant reserved the right to appeal
any denial of this motion to the U.S. District Court Of The Southern
District Of Texas-.
Respectfully submitted,
j£-£fZ?2- &s&sVU<2?<.
LtiEON HARRISON #815719
P0LUNSKY UNIT
3B72 FM 350 So.
LIVINGSTON, TX 77351
CERTIFICATE OF SERUIUE
I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above aind
foregoing pleading was requested by Appellant to the Clerk of the
Court to forward a copy to the 14th Court of Appeals and all parties
Respectfully submitted,
-LX^&fe&/?±z - ___
LEON HARRISON .#131571-9
APPELLANT-PRO SE
4.
ri£C€iVED
DATE-.3/25/15 LEON HARRISON #615719
POLUNEKY UNIT
N SUPREME OOUR'
OCTCYAO
3B72 FM 350 So.
LIVINGSTON, TX 77351 APROi?Q^
BLM&HAW IHUJ-HMt, UtefK
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
CHIEF JUSTICE WALLACE JEFFERSON
PLACE 1, PO BOX 1224B
AUSTiENy TEXAS 7B711-224B
RE: LEON HARRISON \1. STATE, No .1 4-1 3-00239-CR; TCNo.635921; COURT
# 230TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS TEXAS,
Dear Justice Jefferson:
I would like to file this motion for the court under Rule 60(b)(5)
.--} ,--[ (--•;
and bring to the docket to be ruled upon.
Please have the Clerk of Court file a copy with the 14th Court of
Appeal sand ail parties a file date.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
-^k&-^~z/&?&^..
Appellant, pro se
CC
Harrison, Leon
Combined Opinion